WP:Clark says he "probably" would have voted for IWR

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. "That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited," Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32450-2003Sep18.html

It keeps the focus on the fact that George Bush is the problem here...not other candidates.

now I know that I won't have to support him...Dean is the MAN!

Your one-thousandth post had better be a dandy.

I think I am getting deliriously tired (NyQuil'd myself about an hour ago due to headcold).

Carry on DU. Goodnight.

He should not have an opinion about how the others voted if he was not there to have to vote his political future. At least Clark is honest.

Dean has refused to say how he'd vote on Bush's request for $87 billion, claiming, "I'm not in Congress. I'm running for president. I'd tell you what I'm going to do but I'm not going to tell you how I'd face an issue that is not of my making."

Does anyone else find that strange? Dean hasn't been the least bit reticent to say how he'd have voted on the war or on the Patriot Act, but can't say how he would vote on the $87 billion? Those issues weren't of his making either, but he sure talks about them. Could it be that he has no problem saying what he would have done after the fact, once the ramifications are clear, but doesn't have the balls to say what he'd do about a tough issue that hasn't been played out yet? Hmmm.

"I'm not going to tell you how I'd face an issue that is not of my making"

But I never saw it in print! Why didn't the media make a big deal about this!?! He won't tell us how he'd deal with something not of his making?? How does he expect us to trust him with the mess Bush has us in then??

Holy Moly.

He said it to CNN's Jonathan Karl on September 8.

This from the transcript:

KARL: But, even the president's toughest critics, like anti-war presidential candidate Howard Dean, stopped short of opposing the extra money for Iraq.

KARL: How would you vote on the $87 billion?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not in Congress. I'm not going to...

KARL: It's the most important matter for the U.S. Congress (unintelligible).

DEAN: I doubt that very much. I'm running for president. I tell you what I'm going to do but I'm not going to tell you how I'd face an issue that is not of my making.

Straight shooter? I don't think so.

to support war. Nancy was on the House's Ingelligence Committee. Rep Nancy Pelosi led the revolt of 2/3's of the House Dems against then-Minority Leader Gephardt over the Iraq War vote. Nancy was right, along with the 23 senators, who voted AGAINST the Iraq Resolution, Al Gore and Howard Dean that Bush had no evidence to support war against Iraq.

Dean was right to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning. Clark is playing Clinton's trickery.

but not deadly.

He's basically saying he would have voted giving authorization knowing what he did then, but knowing what he did at the onset of the war and after, he was opposed. He's honest, and I can respect that. I would prefer he was always opposed, but his statement makes sense to me.

held by a large number of americans...that they wanted to hold Saddam accountable, but are deeply disappointed and embarassed with GWB's execution.

With the exception of Lieberman on one (hawk) side and Kucinich on the (dove) other, I think that is basically how all the candidates feel about the situation. But I do believe none would have sought a war. No. Only some really bad/misguided people would do that...

believing that the War in Iraq was necessary because 9/11 was Hussain's fault. Even worse most of these people probably think that Iraqis, not Saudi Arabians flew the planes into the buildings.

Not intellegent grounds for making this type of policy judgement. This is why we elect Representatives and Senators, because they do have time to study these issues and to make well-informed decisions in areas that the majority are too often clueless on. If they don't do this, why not just rule by referendum and dismantle representative government?

You humble citizen you.

Sure 7/10 seem to believe in the 9/11 thing.
But there are also pluralities and majorities saying
it isn't worth it, that the U.N should take over, that
it made us less safe than more safe, etc.
I think it's all about how they ask the question.

1.) Maybe I'm a Democrat, or, wait, was I a Republican. Gosh I don't remember.

2.) Maybe I was against the war, but I would have voted for it but still been against it, or something like that.

3.) This economy sucks and we should maybe do something about it. Nobody's told me what yet, so don't ask.

4.) I guess gays in the military are alright as long as they don't misbehave. I'm not sure what "misbehave" means, though.

5.) Brady bill? What's that? I don't know what that is.

6.)The one thing he was sure about: "This is America -- we operate on the greenback and I need your help."

So he needs our help to get the message out. My only question is "what message?"

That voted for it. So that makes the war a non-issue for everyone except Kucinich and Dean. Which adds pressure, to me, for Clark to come up with a health plan and some kind of job recovery plan.

He says he stands with Kerry and Lieberman on this and with his military background I think Kerry will be the one who has to look behind his back. His "probably" comment is great news for Dean because anti-war democrats (who probably make up more than a majority of Democratic primary and caucus voters) will be cautious about supporting Clark with these comments. Also liberals in general will be cautious about supporting a man who "probably" voted for Nixon and Reagan.

i am not sure I agree, but still valid.
Being an optimist for JK, one might believe that Clark will legitimize JK's point of view. And potentially articulate it better.

That he validates the votes of the other Senators, including Edwards, and removes that small chunk of difference between himself and the others.

I think he also pokes a few holes (not for the DU denizens, but for the average American) in Dean's "I knew all along it was wrong! Why didn't they???!" argument.

would have voted for the resolution anyway.....I could swear that Clark supporters said he was against this war.....but maybe they didn't know..... The few times I saw him on CNN he didn't seem to be unhappy we had Invaded, but many folks said that he critcized Bush about it. I guess he didn't like the way Bush handled it......but I think I would prefer Kerry if it came down to two candidates who voted for the War.......or maybe Gebhardt.....

Still, I'd rather stick with Kucinich and Dean.......and if only Graham handled himself better.....

could have voted for the IWR and been against the war (eg as executed because it was not the option of last resort or because your opinion of the evidence on which you based your original vote had changed).

be geniuses. All three voted against it. All three were on local call in radio shows in Oct. and Nov. 2002, explaining cogently that there absolutely was not enough proof to give the president a blank check to go to war. That's the language they used. Actually, it didn't take a genius to figure out that Bush shouldn't be trusted and that his administration had provided no real evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

with a blank check to go to war?

I don't and that is why I was really pissed off when the Dems in congress voted for the IWR.

Clark is not leery enough of George W. Bush.

Does he not get it or is this some sort of positioning strategy here.

He may not have been leary enough summer 2002, but he's plenty leary now. The entire Democratic Party is a little more than leary, they know the nation is in peril. I think the Democrats thought that America would bounce out of their fear and the balance would return. They now see it's not going to happen. I see them starting to circle the wagons and take aim. Kennedy today. Pelosi and Murth yesterday. The 9/11 air quality investigation with RFK, JR on board. Adding Clark as another voice against Bush. I'd just as soon vote for a true liberal, so I'll stick with Kerry. And Clark lends the war vote credibility and Kerry will benefit in the end.

And it doesn't come down to just trusting George Bush. It also came down to faith in the institutions that we have relied on for 50 years. There is just no way anyone could have foreseen everything that happened with this war. Not even a clairvoyant could have foreseen it all.

whose position was much the same (even per his own self) and yet dis'es anyone who DID cast that vote.

My respect for the General just went up.

.

And I am most relieved about that. And he supports universal health coverage, that's interesting. But I still prefer the guy who said all of this stuff back before the vote, who has the lifelong liberal record we can look at and who has always been a Democrat. 80% of Kerry supporters believe our guy can beat Bush. I don't think we're going anywhere!

Now we have two candidates - holding almost all the credentials in the field - arguing for the same position, the position held by Bill Clinton.

Namely, the only way to hold Saddam accountable was the real threat of force.

Nevertheless, Bush bungled the entire thing from the start (providing a rationale - disarmament, not regime chance or pre-emption) to the thing itself (unable to secure WMD sites) to the post-war sceanario (no UN legitimacy, failed to provide basic infrastructure or deadline for turnover).

Of course the right position is naturally of mixed feelings - you voted for the right thing to do, you had to sit and watch Bush's incompetence play out - not to mention that both he and Powell went back on their word.

Clark lends a great deal of legitimacy to Kerry's position now, and it will be great to see two examples of tested leadership arguing forcefully for what should have been done and what we need to do now.

Three US soldiers have been killed in an ambush near Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, the latest in a continuing series of attacks on Americans in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3119778.stm

Great leaders...

I'm glad that Dean voted "no" on IWR, but nothing will change until regime comes at home. What does he plan to do in the future? Honestly, I'm not even sure where he left off - troops stay, go, remain same? I've seen statements by him that could mean all of the above.

And beyond Iraq, what concrete plans does Dean have for "draining the swamp" of terrorism? I've heard that he wants to do that, but never heard any tangible proposals.

pull out or not, the attacks wont stop.

What's Dean's plan to drain the swamps, so to speak? I know Kerry has a comprehensive plan, but I'm still waiting for Dean's proposals.

he has no real plans.

over on GD.

This is not what people expected Clark to say. He actually said something a bit more than this in the interview as reported by NYT:

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position - on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

As for Dean's war views: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to information."

Let the legitimizing begin! Maybe he is running for VP after all.

Or maybe he will find just the right spin on this. He can say he would've voted for it, to placate that camp, but that he believes it was wrong to go in, in retrospect, which is okay for him to say because hey, he didn't vote for it. Perhaps he's found the quintessential sweet spot on this issue. Time will tell.

Hindsight needs no glasses. But at the time, he "tend(ed) to believe the President."

Lots of things could be said in retrospect. In retrospect, maybe Milli Vanilli wasn't as good as they were perceived to be. I still happen to think they were a great band, but that's me.

I rarely get annoyed, but revisionist history about how voting for the IWR was the right thing to do, really bugs me. It was not the right thing to do. And as I said further upthread, my senators and congressman voted against it and made clear to their constituents why.

As far as Dean's plans, why don't you check his website?

You know I've always admired your candidate. I've made that clear. But he didn't do the right thing. If he had, I'd probably be on board. The worse things get in Iraq, the more the Senator's vote sticks in my craw. Yeah, I know he couldn't have stopped it, but that's not the point.

but it is way too early for me to see it.

In retrospect, Milli Vanilli weren't even WHO they were supposed to be. They were faking it. Run with that, somebody.

Did he SAY anything there at all?? He needs to get handlers. Quickly. They need to establish some things he can say that actually make sense until he figures out what he thinks and can talk for himself.

Clark's gaffe seems along the same line of triangulation logic that Clinton used -- appear anti-Iraq war to anti-Iraq war activists but vote for it to appear strong on defense.

Isn't that what pissed off Dem activists last year when Dem leaders like Gephardt, Kerry, Daschle, and Edwards used that line of reasoning to vote for the Iraq war, which was based upon fraud?

Go over to commondreams.org and take a look at the piece about Clark praising the "resolve of Bush and Blair" -- especially Blair, and this was after Baghdad fell. In other words, praising their resolve in the face of teh overwhelming opposition of folks like US. Of course, maybe that was safer, he was doing it in a British paper.

why does this guy get to have it both ways??

at the time the weapons of mass destruction claim by the administration was still holding up water. Even the military conducting the war was bracing and planning for a possible WMD attack on their troops. So Clark wasn't alone in thinking that the Bush administration wouldn't dare invade another country on hyped intelligence and at the cost of hurting int'l relations (I didn't think they'd make that much up either...I thought that Iraq was at least trying to develop nuclear weapons in a substantial way).

He applauded the result of the war: a toppling of a genocidal dictator (which Clark had also taken part in himself w/Milosevic) and freedom for Iraqi people. That doesn't mean he couldn't still question Bush's handling of the war as far as timing and diplomacy. Not to mention lack of planning for after the regime was ousted.

Also, bear in mind that Blair and the Labor party are ideological allies of the Democratic party. He's been a good friend to the US and made a much stronger legal argument for war against Iraq (which kept getting blurred and botched by Bush's bogus 9/11 connection). Perhaps Clark was helping out an old ally in Blair's gov't. They did take down Milosevic together (both pushed for a more aggressive campaign to stop Serb atrocities with ground troops).

been fooled along with Kerry and Edwards. Dean supported the war but wanted a delay to allow the U.N. to join in.

by saying that we're definitely disarming Hussein one way or the other. Then it made it nearly impossible for us to back out of doing something once our troops were there and the U.N. opted to not have a second resolution (obviously could've been a Bush tactic to put pressure the whole time). If we didn't do what we said we'd do, then American threats/promises of using force would carry alot less weight thus making it more likely in the future that we'd have to use force more rather than just threaten use (and thus endangering Americans more). Did that make sense? Good, because I sort of lost myself there for a second.